TDS under section 194A was liable to be deducted on amount paid towards interest on loan availed for purchasing a vehicle even when the amount in question was debited from the account of assessee through ECS and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was to be made for non-deduction of tax at source even when nothing remained outstanding at the end of the year as the provisions contained under section 40(a)(ia) did not make any distinction between the amount paid or payable.
In the absence of a valid order u/s 120(4)(b) as well as section 127(1) of the Act the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised powers of an Assessing Officer to pass the impugned assessment order.
Section 194 H was applicable on on the discount allowed by assessee to the prepaid card distributors in respect of supply of SIM card/Recharge vouchers (SIM/RV).
Conclusion: Exemption under Section 54 was available to assessee for properties purchased in foreign countries as there was no condition in the provision that the property must be purchased in India prior to amendment in the provision in 2015.
ITAT held that Stock- in-trade can be considered as transferred only in the year in which the assessee has executed the sale deed transferring the stock-in-trade and not when the assessee has given stock-in-trade for joint development to the builder. As already held in the above cases, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) would apply only to the capital asset and not to stock-in-trade.
Depreciation claimed by assessee under section 32 cannot be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A because section 14A deals only with the expenditure and not any statutory allowance, such as depreciation under section 32.
Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO observed that assessee failed to reconcile interest income to the extent of Rs.67,939/- with its books of accounts and therefore added back the said amount as undisclosed interest income of the appellant as shown in the Form 26AS. […]
There was no merit in the argument that while a partnership deed is to be registered, amendment thereto is not. Amended salary clause being neither stamped nor registered, it was not admissible in evidence in a court of law, i.e., as a legally enforceable contract. Therefore, AO could not be faulted with for not giving cognizance to such a document and disallowance of remuneration paid to partner as made by AO was justified.
Mercury Car Rentals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) It is noted that the provisions in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, ex-gratia & bonus were created on actuarial basis and had been estimated with reasonable certainty. Accordingly such provisions cannot be said to be provisions of unascertained liabilities so to add it back under clause […]
Papers seized fro the premises of Group Company could not be relied upon for making additions in the hands of the assessee whose names appeared in the said documents.
